IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 1174/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Shri Sudhakar S.Mody ACIT 16(1) 1601/1602 Marathon Vs. Matru Mandir Next Gen. Era-II Tardeo Road Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Mumbai-400 007. Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AACPM4423B Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri A.K. Kardam Date of Hearing 19.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 ORDER Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- appeal filed by assessee is directed against order dated 29.11.2012 passed by learned CIT(A)-5, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2007-08. 2. assessee is aggrieved by decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming order passed by Assessing Officer in rejecting deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 24(b) of I.T. Act. 3. We have heard parties and perused record. assessee had purchased flat from Marathon Realty Limited by availing loan from IDBI Bank. assessee claimed deduction of interest to extent of ` 1,50,000/- u/s. 24(b) of Act. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer asked assessee to produce completion certificate indicating completion of flat during financial year under consideration. Since assessee did not furnish same, Assessing Officer disallowed 2 claim of interest made u/s. 24(b) of Act. learned CIT(A) also confirmed order of Assessing Officer by holding that assessee did not furnish completion certificate from appropriate authority. 4. Learned AR submitted that assessee entered into agreement to purchase flat on 8.9.2004. Flat was ready by October 2006 and soft possession of flat was given in October 2006 itself. Final possession of flat was given to assessee on 24.3.2007. Learned AR submitted that assessee brought these facts to notice of learned CIT(A), vide his letter dated 7.11.2012, wherein assessee also attached certificate issued by Cooperative Housing Society. Learned AR submitted that assessee has taken possession of flat and has thus complied with second proviso to section 24 of Act. 5. On contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee did not furnish completion certificate from appropriate authority and hence possession of flat was not conclusively proved. 6. Having heard rival submissions, we are of view that there is merit in submissions made by learned AR. careful perusal of second proviso to section 24 would show that assessee should acquire or complete construction within three years from end of financial year in which capital was borrowed. In instant case, assessee has furnished certificate from Cooperative Society to show that possession of flat was taken in October 2006 and March 2007. Further, proviso nowhere states that assessee should furnish completion certificate from appropriate (Government) authorities. In our view, evidences furnished by assessee sufficiently prove that assessee has taken possession of flat during relevant financial year under consideration. Accordingly we are of view that assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 24(b) of Act. Accordingly, we set aside order passed by learned 3 CIT(A) and direct Assessing Officer to allow deduction of ` 1,50,000/- claimed by assessee u/s. 24(b) of Act. 7. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in Court on 19.10.2016 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMLAL NEGI) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 19/10/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai Sudhakar S.Mody v. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai